posted
Nothing on the show is 100% blooper-less -- it's a question of whether the MSD is accurate enough to portray a definite size and layout?
If we take into account the fact that it gives us a consistent size -- something the VFX don't -- as well as the number of times it was seen in the background and the lack of any subspace distortions or holographic diversions that could influence shots in space, plus the Deck 4 blueprint seen behind Ezri before the ship explodes, we can see that the canon evidence is far more solid than that for 171m.
posted
Or it could be our mind mis-interpreting what we see? I was reading a fascinating article in the San Francisco Chronicle yesterday on how the mind can create an illusion with what we see, and how scientists are probing the reasons for this. Very amazing stuff.
Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Boris: ...we can see that the canon evidence is far more solid than that for 171m.
That's a matter of opinion rather than emperical fact, Boris. You and I both know that there's many areas where the 110/120m Defiant falls down. For example, the Chaffee shuttle and the escape pods come to mind. A Defiant at 110m would have shuttles that are too small to crew and escape pods that are too small to hold enough crew -- fact.
As for the Defiant docked at DS9 VFX, the 560' Defiant matches the original 3600' intended DS9 diameter. The 120m length would only work if the station is as small as SciPubTech's 800m diameter. That's how my eyes see it anyway.
posted
The following is a footnote in the Making of Deep Space Nine Book:
"DS9's diameter is approximately 1350 meters, which is 2.1 times the Enterprise's length of 642 meters. In old-fashioned measurements, that makes it a little over four-fifths of a mile. The station's mass is 10.12 million metric tonnes. These figures were calculated by Sternbach and Okuda, who, as we have learned, don't want anyone to think that they just make this stuff up."
posted
Dax: That's assuming that the size relationships you mention are correct. Given the fact that the Defiant can even change shape, how do I know that even the structural details have been portrayed correctly?
I could just as well assume that the Ent-E/Defiant, Runabout/Defiant or the Galor/Defiant size comparisons are correct likewise, yielding a 60m-90m Defiant. Is there anything to swing me over to the other end other than the intentions?
The range of uncertainty in the visuals is simply too great for any definite conclusions. The interior graphics, on the other hand, are fairly definite on the subject AND a source that has to be accurate within the portrayed reality of the story. We really don't know what goes on between the camera and the various fields surrounding the ship.
Of course, we'll never know 100% sure -- I'm just trying to find out what's most likely to be correct based on what an observant viewer lacking any behind-the-scenes info would know.
Boris
[ December 03, 2002, 14:51: Message edited by: Boris ]
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Dax: That's assuming that the size relationships you mention are correct. Given the fact that the Defiant can even change shape, how do I know that even the structural details have been portrayed correctly?
But surely we can accept the structure of the physical studio miniature as the baseline.
quote:I could just as well assume that the Ent-E/Defiant, Runabout/Defiant or the Galor/Defiant size comparisons are correct likewise, yielding a 60m-90m Defiant. Is there anything to swing me over to the other end other than the intentions?
Agreed. No argument here.
quote:The range of uncertainty in the visuals is simply too great for any definite conclusions. The interior graphics, on the other hand, are fairly definite on the subject AND a source that has to be accurate within the portrayed reality of the story. We really don't know what goes on between the camera and the various fields surrounding the ship.
But the interior detail isn't consistent either. We still have anomalies such as the turbolift Okudagram, Sisko firing down a long vertical Jefferies tube in "Adversary", the three separate accounts of Deck 5, and your own suggestion that engineering is lower than deck 2.
quote:Of course, we'll never know 100% sure -- I'm just trying to find out what's most likely to be correct based on what an observant viewer lacking any behind-the-scenes info would know.
The problem is that we're too close to the subject and know too much to be objective (IMO). I honestly don't think the Defiant size argument will ever be satisfactorily resolved unless a future movie specifically mentions the length (like the "nearly 700m long" of FC).
quote:Originally posted by Dax: But surely we can accept the structure of the physical studio miniature as the baseline
Yes, in and of itself. However, the Defiant is a 3-foot long model. The DS9 station is a 6-foot diameter model. They have to be resized on screen to get them to look their appropriate scales. Of all the measurements we could take to figure out ship sizes, the one that inherently is the most error prone, is where you have two ships in a shot where neither was physically filmed together nor exist at the same scale to begin with. It's a good approximation, but it's not the final word.
Look at the shot of the ships at the station on Boris' site. From that shot alone, the Nebula Class is too small to be closer to us than the station is. The saucer width of the Nebula is identical to the length of the Excelsior: 467m. If you could rotate the excelsior about it would be too long to fit under the saucer exactly. So the Nebula Class isn't properly scaled to the station in that shot; it should appear bigger.
quote:Originally posted by SoundEffect: Of all the measurements we could take to figure out ship sizes, the one that inherently is the most error prone, is where you have two ships in a shot where neither was physically filmed together nor exist at the same scale to begin with.
So what you're saying is that motion controlled VFX is insufficient for determining ship sizes. I already agreed to that in my prior post.
So ignoring VFX, what are we left with? Dialogue, internal graphic displays (MSD etc), the usage of the sets, known external structure, and the producers intentions.
It's desirable to know as much as possible, but we must keep the precedence of sources in mind.
The tube shot might be a mistake if we see the lines as deck separations, but a whole bunch of other deck inconsistencies can be explained by proposing that the Defiant, and possibly a few other ships, uses a functional method of labeling areas, where decks stand for specific categories of areas, and sections for individual rooms within that category. If the sealed-off "Deck 2" is actually a two-level area, it would explain why the people from the engine room couldn't easily get to it.
For one thing, we see people entering the turbolift and calling out "Deck 5, Section 1" or "Deck 2, Section 5". Why not simply call out "engine room" and let the turbolift calculate the location? Even if the 'lift doesn't go there, it can still take you to the nearest point.
Since even the unfamiliar Jem'Hadar called out the numbers, it does seem that the computer requires knowledge of specific numbers for some areas, possibly as a security precaution. Now, if you already need to memorize this, AND are usually travelling by turbolift, why not reorganize the Defiant into the abovementioned functional system?
Starfleet seems to rely a lot on memorization to maintain security, and possibly increase speed (even today, it's faster to press F1 than to select Help from a menu). So many of its consoles are labeled with numbers -- you can't use the navigation console, for instance, without knowing all the codes.
posted
That's all a bit too convoluted for my liking, Boris. When something like "deck 5" is mentioned, the natural assumption by the audience is that the ship has at least 5 unique levels, like a 5 story building. Even most hardcore Trek fans treat decks in this manner.
I would personally either accept that the Defiant is taller than the MSD would have us believe, or completely ignore the Deck 5 dialogue.
posted
Ok, I'll concede that it's a bit convoluted. I guess the only other option is to leave out deck numbers on door signs and make them refer to section numbers and room numbers only. I'm still trying to find the best possible fit given the data we have.
In that case, the only way to make the MSD as correct as possible is to suppose that the Defiant really is 171m long and has four major structural frames with about two decks each, giving us a total of seven or eight decks. Either the details of the MSD are in error or they're blown up as TSN suggests, and we'll have to disregard the fact that the thing looks like a perfect crosssection in a closeup.
You could technically say the ship has only five decks since the turbolift schematic isn't that legible, but if you're already disregarding the MSD, why not make it bigger and account for all of the interior problems (long Jefferies tubes, long vertical turbolift rides)?
"...we'll have to disregard the fact that the thing looks like a perfect crosssection in a closeup."
It looks like nothing of the sort. As someone already mentioned, if it were a perfect cross-section, it would be indicating that the warp core sticks out of the bottom of the ship and dangles out in empty space.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
1. I like the 120 meter Defiant. It makes little sense for the tough little ship to be just a few hairs shy of a Miranda in size.
2. Captain Mike's pic of a double-windowed corridor is hysterical.
3. Much as I'm loathe to admit it, the scaling against the tractored runabout is going to end up problematic at best. Without knowing the distance to the Defiant, we cannot know her size. And we cannot know her distance without first knowing her size.
4. The scaling against the escape pods has been performed against the hull plate which covers them. However, given the variability of Defiant models and the apparent discrepancy of the length of those plates on the screencap vs. the model shot, I do not see how one can accept that scaling. Note, if you will, that the plates on the Valiant have a forward point occurring well in front of the round glowy-thingy, and end at a point approximately midway along the second. The same is not seen in the model, whether you assume that the Valiant's forwardmost glowy-thingy is the first or the second.
5. In the Nebula pic, the station is approximately three (2.961) times the width of the Nebula saucer, including accounting for Pythagoras, but not accounting for the multiple-hundred-meter distance difference. The station would thus be 1382 meters wide at absolute minimum, and significantly more (1450-1500m) if we account for the additional distance from the camera to the station's centerline from the station's edge (i.e. at least 650 meters). A 1350 meter station, on the other hand, would suggest a smaller Nebula (or trick of the angles), in the neighborhood of 425 meters of width as observed.
A solution is to scale against the Excelsior, which is nearer the station centerline and also a better-known quantity than the station itself. If an Excelsior saucer is 186 meters wide, then the station (which is 5.57 times wider in the image) would be 1036 meters in width.
The Nebula is misscaled. This fits well within my opinion that Stipes is a crack-smoker, but that's not important right now.
If we attempt to scale the Defiant against the station or Excelsior (notwithstanding the distance issue regarding centerlines), we arrive at a figure of roughly 147 meters. Accounting for the distance issue would lessen that figure considerably, suggesting that 147 meters is a high-end value in that scene.
6. In regards to the other Excelsior comparison, I shall remain silent since it has been far too long since I saw the scene in motion, and thus cannot reliably comment on the positions involved.
If one were to adjust the figures in the table accordingly, throwing out the First Contact gaffe, the runabout comparison, and adjusting the Nebula comparison to the high-end 147 meters, the average of what remains would work out to:
126.1 meters.
EDIT: If one includes the escape pods (which were not in the table), the figure is 131 meters average . . . but I'm not fond of the escape pod scaling. At any rate, we're within a relatively comfortable margin of error which would leave the Defiant as 120 meters.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
